A disposable plastic tube, called a saliva ejector, is used in combination with a suction tube of a dental aspirator system to suction saliva and bioburden during dental procedures. With reference to FIGS. 1 to 3, there is shown a disposable saliva ejector 2 in accordance with the prior art. The saliva ejector 2 comprises a bendable hollow tube 4 which includes a first end 6 having a suction tip 8 with open slits 10 for suctioning the oral cavity. The tube 4 further includes a second end 12 sized for close fit insertion into the receiving fixture 18 of suction tube 14 of a dental aspirator system. The suction tube 14 of the dental aspirator system typically has a suction control knob 16 disposed adjacent the receiving fixture or fitting 18. During a dental procedure, the hygienist will reposition the saliva ejector 2 in the patient's mouth many times by handling the region of the base area of the saliva ejector 2 and the receiving fixture 18. As a result of this handling, the suction tube 14 is subject to contamination by the transmission of bacteria from the patient's mouth via the hygienist's gloved hands. In accordance with OSHA recommendations, the connection between the saliva ejector 2 and the suction tube 14 should be covered with a plastic cover-slip 20 in order to prevent bacterial contamination of the suction tube 14.
In accordance with the conventional practice, once the disposable saliva ejector 2 is fitted to the suction tube 14, the dental hygienist must apply the cover-slip 20 to seal off this connection point. The prior art cover slip 20 is an elongated flat plastic sleeve having a closed end 22 and an open end 24. They are mass produced items and are shipped in bulk. Prior to use, each cover-slip 20 must be prepared by first retrieving the cover-slip 20 from its bulk packaging container and then cutting a hole in the closed end 22. The open end 24 of the cover-slip 20 is next guided over the saliva ejector 2 and pulled down to where the saliva ejector 2 joins the suction tubing 14. The desired final positioning of the cover-slip 20 over the saliva ejector 2 and suction tubing 14 is shown in FIG. 3.
The above described set up and preparation process is very time consuming. And since time is at a premium in the dental office, there is a need for an improved saliva ejector that accelerates the set up process for each dental procedure.
Another problem often encountered with the prior art plastic cover-slip preparation technique has to do with the size hole that is cut into the closed end 22 of the cover-slip 20. If the cut hole is too large in diameter, the cover-slip 20 has the tendency to slide down the suction tubing 14 beyond the receiving fixture or fitting 18 where it is supposed to protect the suction tube 14 and dental aspirator system from bacterial contamination. If the hole is too small, it tends to hang up and snag against the suction tip 8 of the saliva ejector 2. In many instances, the hygienist continues to pull on the cover-slip 20 in order to overcome the snag point thereby causing the cut hole to rip or tear unevenly, thus again making it too big and thus ineffective in preventing against bacterial contamination of the suction tube 14 and the rest of the dental aspirator system.
Even in the case where the hole is cut to the right size, there is still a tendency for the cover-slip 20 to bunch upwards upon handling since the separate plastic cover-slip is not firmly attached to any portion of the saliva ejector 2. A cover-slip 20 which bunches up upon handling must be repeatedly smoothed back down. This happens because the separate cover-slip 20 is placed over the saliva ejector 2 and suction tubing 14 via the hole cut in it, and currently, there is no means available provided by manufacturers of saliva ejectors to anchor or affix the cover-slip to the saliva ejector in order to prevent these types of problems from occurring. Therefore, it would be a streamlining advantage to have the cover-slip affixed to the saliva ejector, prior to use, at the site of manufacture.
To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any prior art that proposes a solution to the above-described problem. However, the following U.S. patents are considered to be relevant to the general state of the art: U.S. Pat. No. 5,688,121 issued Nov. 18, 1997 to Davis; U.S. Pat. No. 5,441,410 issued Apr. 8, 1993 to Segerdal; U.S. Pat. No. 5,076,787 issued Dec. 31, 1991 to Overmyer; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,221,220 issued Sep. 9, 1980 to Hansen.